The Present Holding Pattern

I haven't written a post in a month.   The reason is that there is really nothing new to post about.   

1.   Republicans are being true to their conversion to Trumpism, whether at the national or state level (although it is more rabid at the state  level).   In Congress, they are either just interested in blocking Biden's agenda, regardless of the interests of their constituents, whose interests they are supposed to represent.   Or they continue to further the falsehood that Biden won the election fraudulently and the January 6 storming of the capitol had nothing to do with Trump and the people in the riot were just patriots. 

I would love to see a video that juxtaposed Speaker McCarthy's statements on January 6 and immediately thereafter, and his statements now.   You can't even call it a shift.   It's a total reversal from truth to lies.  The man and his party have no shame, no ethics.

2.   The virus is doing its thing, and the millions of unvaccinated people in the US are enabling it to have another surge with the Delta variant which is causing, in areas with low vaccination rates, numbers of cases to rival the worst part of the pandemic.   And when these unvaccinated people get infected and travel to areas with high vaccination rates and partake in crowded indoor activities (restaurants, bars, dance clubs), even those vaccinated (who aren't wearing masks anymore) get infected. 

There is no indication that anything much will change on this front.   Many people who choose not to be vaccinated are adamant.   Some are undecided still, and so perhaps they will get the shots, but the majority are in the first group. 

Bottom line, while we were never going to be free of the virus, it looks like our return to normal in most areas of the country is a thing of the past.   Even the vaccinated will have to wear a mask indoors, certainly in a reasonably crowded venue.   

Some places, like Broadway theaters, are requiring people to be fully vaccinated and wear masks in order to attend.  Some employers are requiring works to be vaccinated,  All indoor venues, except those that are essential, should have this requirement.   This includes airlines.   And if they aren't essential, all visitors must be required to wear a mask. 

3.   No news on the climate change front.   We continue to experience increased numbers of and severity of natural disasters, whether it's heat, rain, flooding, drought, wildfires, etc.   As with the virus, too many people take no responsibility for their actions and efforts by the government will have minimal impact, and too late.   We are it seems past the tipping point and the only question is how bad will it get.   That's the only thing we/government can impact now. 

So we as a country and as a government are in a stalemated, holding, pattern.   It is in all regards a sad state of affairs.   Whatever euphoria and hope there was after Trump lost the election are long since gone.   For the foreseeable future,  posts will come when matters warrant or there is some important observation to make.

Scientists Were Asleep at the Wheel

During the ongoing debate about the nature of climate change, I had assumed, as I’m sure most others have, that the revelation both regarding the extent of climate change and the cause of that change being greenhouse gases was relatively recent.  I certainly never remember the subject being raised before the 90s.

I was shocked therefore when I recently came upon the following while reading Rachel Carson’s famous and well-respected book, The Sea Around Us.  The book discusses the origins of the oceans and the evolution of oceans, continents, climate, and human settlement over geologic time into the present.  Writing in 1961, she said:

“It is now established beyond question that a definite change in the arctic climate set in about 1900, that it became astonishingly marked about 1930, and that it is now spreading into sub-arctic and temperate regions.  The frigid top of the world is very clearly warming up.”

She goes on to discuss a resulting dramatic lessening of ice in the arctic, the greater ease of navigation, the retreat of glaciers, the impact on the migration patterns of animals, and the lengthening of growing seasons in sub-arctic regions.  She also notes the rising of the seas.

But she puts this in the context of “we are still in the warming-up stage following the last Pleistocene glaciation - that the world’s climate, over the next thousands of years, will grow considerably warmer before beginning a downward swing into another Ice Age.”  

She states that the dramatic change seen since 1900 is “of a shorter duration, decades or centuries,” perhaps because the change is so much greater than would be expected, and goes on to note the several possible explanations that scientists have proposed … an increase in solar activity or the cycle of the ocean’s deep currents.  She ends with  “the long trend is towards a warmer earth; the pendulum is swinging.”

She does not mention the greenhouse gas effect.  Yet in fact, the theory of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming from burning fossil fuels was formed and studied by the late 1800s.  But scientists being often ego-driven and slow to accept another’s research, this theory was not taken up again until the 1950s and was not broadly accepted until the 1980s.  Apparently when Rachel Carson wrote, there wasn’t a serious question in scientific minds at that time that this warming was caused by the greenhouse gas effect.

So we have been sitting on a climatic time bomb for more than a century.  And for most of that time, scientists and governments have been asleep at the wheel.  We have virtually lost the opportunity to act so as to prevent future climatic disruptions and disaster for the human race.  Even if the will were to be found.

The question I ask myself is: how many other issues are there that are of vital importance to the future wellbeing of the planet and mankind that we aren’t addressing because no one is paying attention or no one has a confirmed answer.  Just like there is a group that is scanning the skies for asteroids that might strike the Earth, creating havoc, there should be a committee which focuses on evidence of other matters that are of great import to our future and sees to it that they receive appropriate public and scientific airing.

For Being So Smart, Man Sure Has Made a Mess of Things

In his ceaseless quest for “progress,” man is creating an environment which is ever more inhospitable to man.  Many would call this statement an oxymoron.  The general wisdom is that progress makes our lives better, as embodied by the old DuPort slogan, “Better living through chemistry.”

Unfortunately the general wisdom, while in part undeniably true, has come at a terrible price for mankind.  The environment which sustains us and gives us life as well as our very humanity are being seriously compromised, possibly irreparably.  Let me count the ways - some much discussed, some less so.

Probably the most discussed way in which progress is creating a world inhospitable to man is the destruction of the environment.  The industrial revolution and the adoption of the automobile as the primary and preferred mode of transportation, combined with the rate of population growth and the emergence of newly-middle class populations particularly in China and India, have resulted in an exponential growth in the use of fossil fuels over the past century, especially in recent decades.  

From 1910 to the present, fossil fuel use has increased from a base of 1,000 to 11,000.  In the last 50 years alone, its use has increased almost 300%.  And while coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, does have a much smaller share of the total energy market today, what is rarely pointed out is that the actual amount of coal used world-wide is more now than ever; a 200+% increase since 1965.  

This increase in fossil fuel use is causing a change in the climate/weather parameters that man has depended upon to support his way of life for millennia.  (See my post, “Climate Disorder = Global Upheaval.”)   We are probably already past the tipping point.  The efforts of the international community to reduce carbon emissions may, if successful, slow the process, but it will not stop the process.  The news from scientists is always the same, “We didn’t think it would happen this quickly.”  But it has and continues to.

Beyond the use of fossil fuels, our use of chemicals in every conceivable product is causing mostly unknown damage to man.  Yes, a small number of chemicals have been studied and shown to be dangerous, and they have been taken off the market.   And there has been improvement, along certain parameters, in air and water quality under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. 

But vast numbers of chemicals have been released into the air, soil and water, and absorbed by our bodies, that have not been studied at all.  We simply have no idea what impact they will have.  We do know that illnesses, such as cancer, exist now in unheard of numbers and there is speculation that the air we breathe, the water we drink, etc. is the cause for this increase is disease prevalence.  But there is no proof.  

However, a rational person looking at the plethora of chemicals in our bodies, the air, the soil, and water would say that the most reasonable assumption is that these chemicals will have a negative impact on us.  How could they not, given the intricacy of the functioning of the environment and the human body.  And that they therefore should not be allowed unless proven to be safe.  Rather than the other way around, which is how we have operated.  The dictum of criminal law, “innocent until proven guilty,” has no place in this context.

Then there is the issue of technology.  Several decades ago, the development of new technology was touted as the harbinger of more leisure time, a shorter work week.  Instead,  just the opposite has happened.  With each new technological advancement, making it possible to do things more quickly or be available at all times, our lives have become more burdened.  Certainly people in white collar jobs work harder now than they ever did with less time for leisure and for family.  For many blue collar workers, technological progress has brought unemployment as their jobs have been eliminated by increasing automation. 

But there is a darker side to the impact of technology resulting from the use of smartphones and tablets in combination with the development of social media.  It’s obvious in just looking around that most people are connected to their electronic screens every moment when they are not otherwise occupied, and often even when they are.  Whether they’re in a restaurant with friends or family, standing in the subway, walking down a street, or even in the theater … there, those electronics don’t get turned off till the last possible second, and as soon as the lights come up, they are turned on again.

Numerous articles have been written stating that the use of social media has become an addiction and that the social skills of people, especially the young, who are obsessively absorbed with their electronics have been negatively impacted.  Their interpersonal skills have been weakened.  They shy away from real relationships and instead see their social media “friends” as relationships.  They are removed from whatever they are doing, they aren’t really there.   This so closely tracks the definition of autism that I recently wrote a post, “The Increase in Social Media and Autism - Coincidence or Causal?”  But few people seem to be paying attention to this threat.

Another topic that is rarely discussed is the impact of the automobile and tourism on our lives.  For centuries we have made our homes in cities, towns, and villages.  These were vibrant places … even the smallest village … with life and human interaction typically centered around the local grocery/general store or stores, sitting on porches and chatting with passersby, or otherwise being part of a community. 

Now tourism and the automobile have created a double whammy that has rendered almost every place, with the exception of the largest cities, either a perversion or shell of their former selves.  In the decades following WWII, many cities and towns suffered economically.  Those that could turned to tourism as a way to pour fresh blood into the local economy.  But due to the increased use of credit cards and the marketing prowess of the internet, tourism has in the last decade become an all-devouring monster for many communities.  

Yes, it brings in people and dollars, stores are no longer empty, but the cost to the lives of the people who live there has been great.  Whether it’s Charleston, Savannah, or Asheville, to name just a few, towns are now overrun with tourists.  And these are not mostly tourists who have a love of history, who want to savor the charms of the past.  It’s hard to know what drives them, but mostly they seem to be out for fun and a few minutes of enrichment.  With hordes of such tourists, who seem to have no respect for the place they are visiting, the beauty and pace of life that was, is no more.

Other cities and towns, who continued to prosper and grow after WWII, developed suburbs in response to population growth and the availability of the automobile.  With the new residential development came shopping malls filled not with local stores but chains. 

As a result of this growth, and people’s love of driving, even people who still live in cities or towns started driving out to the suburbs to do their shopping because they wanted name brands/chains.  And the stores in the new malls were larger, had a greater selection of merchandise, often at lower cost, than the smaller stores that existed in town.  So not only did many people with disposable incomes move out of the cities, but those that remained stopped shopping there.   

And so slowly, the small local stores that had been the hub of life in the cities/towns went out of business.  I experienced this first hand in my home town of Reading, PA.  When I was growing up in the 50s and on into the 60s, downtown Reading was a vibrant place.  That’s where people went to shop.  You knew and talked to the store owners, sales personnel, the butcher, etc.  But by the 80s, the suburbs and shopping malls had grown so much that downtown Reading collapsed.  It was no more.  Literally.  Now it has been turned into an office center.  

And this is not just an American experience.  A recent article in The New York Times noted that the same phenomenon has happened in France where many of the older cities/towns are filled with shuttered shops as people flock to the outskirts to shop in the new shopping malls.

So the progress offered by the freedom of the automobile together with that offered by the use of credit cards has resulted in a catastrophe for many cities and towns.  They are devoid of the life that they used to have.  The new suburbs are also devoid of this quality of life.  They aren’t towns in the old sense of the word; there is no commercial nucleus around which the towns exist and function.  It’s all sprawl.  Everything is totally car dependent … you can’t walk anywhere in post-WWII suburbs.  There is no community.

And so people’s lives have changed, and not for the better.  As an example of poetic justice, the technology of the internet is now threatening those very shopping malls as more and more people are shopping online; it’s convenient.  

In the largest cities, you do still have vibrant neighborhoods.  They have not been impacted by tourism or the automobile.  But here, community life has been drastically altered both by technology and the chase after the almighty dollar.  Everyone is so focused on their electronics and making money, on improving their status in life, that they have little time or energy for other people, even often their own family.  Yes, people still get together to have fun.  And parents and children cross paths at home.  But that seems to be all that it is.  There’s no energy for a deeper investment or interest in others.  

This is not nostalgia.  This is an assessment of how our interaction with each other, our sense of community (beyond rooting for the local sports franchise), has diminished.  And with that we have lost something very important as human beings.  We have created an atmosphere that is barely fit for human life.  For to be human is to interact with others, face to face on a personal level. 

So what does mankind have to show for all the “progress” we’ve made in the past few centuries, especially the last one?  We certainly have more wealth.  We have more creature comforts, a higher standard of living.  Household chores have been made easier.  Illnesses have been cured and people live longer.   These are not minor achievements. 

But in this Faustian bargain, we have set in motion an upheaval in our environmental habitat that will have major but unknown consequences for our lives and well-being.  We have polluted the air, soil, and water around us, as well as our bodies, with a multitude of chemicals, again with unknown but unquestionable consequence for our health.  We have each year created new technological advances, and yet our lives grow harder and the sap of human life is drained from us.  And the ubiquitous automobile together with credit-driven tourism has resulted in the demise of our cities, towns, and villages as places where humanity thrives.

In this post, I have discussed these issues from a very human-centric perspective.  Yet we ignore at our own peril the impact that our “progress” has had on the animals and plants with whom we share this planet and on whom we depend in so many ways for our survival.

I’ve written several posts on how we might find our way back to a more meaningful life.  (For example, see “Healing Our Nation, Healing Ourselves.”)  But given human dynamics, it seems highly unlikely that we will change direction barring some huge catastrophe which makes everyone stop and reassess our way of living.

Trump’s Simplistic Parochialism

It’s one thing to say, “America First.”  It’s another to be simplistic in its application and have no understanding of what that phrase really means.

"America First" raises two issues regarding Trump’s action of taking the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords.  The first is, even assuming for argument’s sake that our participating in the accords was in some narrow way against our economic interests, does the significance of the issue for the world, and ultimately therefore for the U.S., mean that the U.S. should do what is best for the larger community?  Is our national interest something larger than our economic interest?

There are several ways of looking at this.  If the U.S. wishes to continue to be a leader, if not the leader, on the world stage, then without question we need to do our part to insure a safe planet not just for our children and their children, but for the children of all people.

The leadership issue aside, from a moral perspective, how can a country which expounds on its exceptionalism at every opportunity as well as the centrality of its faith in God act in a way which even arguably is destructive of the planet’s environment to such an extent that it impacts the heritage we leave our children?  

It’s one thing to say that you don’t believe that climate change is man-made (although Trump’s emissaries when questioned have said they don’t know whether he believes in it or not), it’s another to say that the argument that it is has no credence.  When we’re talking about the upheaval of the climate-based order of the world and possibly the viability of Earth as a human habitat as we know it in the future, do you want to take any risk, however small?

And finally, yes, our national interest is larger than our economic, certainly our corporate, interest.  When we have lost sight of that in the past, troubles have ensued.  It is probably safe to say, although many would disagree, that the Bush administration got us into the Iraq war not because of our national interest, or even national security interest, but because of corporate interests.  Even the Vietnam War was more an expression of our corporate interests … the big corporations wanted to halt the spread of communism … than our national security interests.

The second issue is, is our commitment under the Paris accords even in a narrow way against our economic interests?  The answer from a broad cross-section of business leaders, economists, and academics is a resounding, “no!”

First, the future of the coal industry and of coal miners is being primarily impacted not by the prospect of carbon caps and other measures but by the superior cost effectiveness of natural gas and increasingly that of alternative sources of energy.  Our Paris commitments do no further harm to the coal industry.

Second, by not just taking the U.S. out of the Paris accords but also removing efforts to stimulate development of alternative energy sources, Trump is not only depriving U.S. workers a source of new and lasting jobs, but we are ceding to China and other countries the leadership in the development of this technology which will be an economic engine for decades to come.

Third, by taking the U.S. out of the Paris accords, it will hurt our export industry.  People will retaliate against the U.S. by choosing to purchase competitive products from other countries, a Renault v a Chevy, Adidas v Nike.

So Trump's action is actually contrary to the policy, "America First."  Trump makes it sound like he’s standing up for the U.S. and protecting our economy, and that is certainly what his base and, according to a recent New York Times article, small business owners think.  But the reality is that taking the U.S. out of the Paris accords will hurt our economy, which will ultimately hurt everyone, including small business owners.  And It will have a negative impact on our broader national interests.  

Thankfully, the process of leaving the Paris accords will take several years.  Before that process is over we will have a presidential election.  Unless the citizens of this country have lost all common sense, we will have a new president who will rescind Trump’s decision and keep us in the accords.  

Climate Disorder = Global Upheaval

Recently, the Trump administration made it clear that the U.S. does not intend to live up to its commitment made as part of the Paris Agreement to slow climate change.  As the second major source of climate change pollution (after China), this is significant.  This retrenchment has been met with howls from environmental organizations and the international community, but the U.S. public has been mostly silent.

This post seeks to examine this issue and the U.S. public’s apparent assumption that the impact, on us at least, will be slight and that technology can be depended upon to allow us to adapt to any changes.

Our Earth is undergoing changes.  We have been having a conversation about this using the phrases “global warming” and “climate change.”  Given the facts I will present in this post as to what is already happening and the predictions, I think the terms “climate disorder” which results in “global upheaval” are more accurate and appropriate.

The result of these conversations has not been significant.  Yes, there is a global commitment now (all countries, even China, are still committed despite the U.S. pullback), but it is at such a low level that while it may slow the process, it will not stop it.  Indeed, there is serious question whether we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing that could be done to stop it.

There are several reasons why our response has been so weak.  One reason is the persistence of those who deny that these changes, these disruptions, are man-made … they're just part of the natural cycle that the Earth has experienced over the ages.  This has found a receptive audience in many people owing to their habit of being in denial of inconvenient truths.

There are many ways to challenge that position.  But assuming for the moment that the deniers are right, wouldn’t it still be advisable to take whatever action we can to minimize the changes?  The problem with that question is that the changes have been presented as so non-threatening to us if not most of mankind that the answer is, “no.”

The next reason is that any action we could take to significantly reduce CO2 emissions (and thus slow or halt these changes) would involve such an alteration both to our lifestyle and to the operation of our industrial base that it has minimal support from either the public or industry.  From a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit just doesn’t seem to be sufficient to warrant the cost.

Which brings me to the last and most important reason:  the presentation of the issue - the facts marshaled and its packaging - have been woefully understated and ineffective.  Even the more dire predictions, even slick media presentations like Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, seem almost irrelevant to most people.  The common reaction is, “So what?  So some people will be displaced by rising oceans and we’ll have to adapt to warmer temperatures.  No big deal.”  The general feeling is that the change will not be significant, and what change there is can be dealt with through adaptive technology.  Bottom line, no disruption. 

What we must therefore attempt is to accurately ... there is no need to exaggerate or embellish ... and clearly present the facts and predictions in a way which makes them relevant to people in the U.S. and around the world.

1.  What is happening already?

The enormous weight of the Greenland ice sheet impacts the axis of the Earth’s rotation and the location of the poles. As the Greenland ice sheet melts, as it is doing with increasing speed … each year the sheet is loosing 287 billion tons of ice … the axis and the location of the poles will change.  How much no one knows, but the loss of just a fragment of the Greenland ice sheet, as well as Antarctic and North Pole ice, is already having an impact with the North Pole moving ever so slowly towards the UK.  This will without question impact worldwide weather and climate, but in ways unknown.

The seas have risen 2.6 inches since 1993 and are rising at an increasing rate. In low-lying places around the world, from Miami Beach to islands in the South Pacific, the water at high tide is routinely covering land that was only flooded during serious storms in the past.

Large areas of Asia and Africa have experienced terrible drought; desertification is increasing.  California has experienced a severe multiple year drought.  Yes, they’ve recently had lots of rain and snow, but that does not signal the end of the drought; just a brief respite.

Due to flooding and drought and other natural disasters, areas of the world have been made uninhabitable and so there have already been masses of climate change refugees.  In 2014 more than 19 million people from 100 countries were forced to flee their homes (how many of these were just temporary evacuations is not available).

Warmer winter temperatures have already extended the range of a variety of pests with devastating impact on pine and other forests.  Moose in Maine are dying because ticks are not being killed by winter cold.  Alfalfa crops in areas of California have encountered a new disease due to climate change.  This is just a sampling.

2.  What are the current predictions?

Sea levels could increase anywhere from a conservative 3 feet up to nearly 10 feet by 2100, depending on CO2 concentrations in the air and the speed at which polar ice melts.  Even a 3’ increase will mean huge areas will become uninhabitable.  In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where rising sea levels will play a major role in the extent of flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

In the US, the south-west and the Great Plains will likely face decade-long droughts far worse than any experienced in recorded memory, including recent droughts.  The risk of drought from 2050-2099 rises to 96% in both areas compared to only 45% in the plains and 62% in the south-west from 1950-2000.  The will mean the end of U.S. food production as we’ve come to depend on it.  One quarter of all US food production occurs in the central valley of California; the great plains is the bread basket of the country.   Food production in those areas would suffer a major decrease.  

As for the rest of the world, most of Europe, the Middle East, large parts of Africa and parts of South America are at high risk for extreme drought.  The most serious impact for most people will again be on food production and water, which will be significant.

It is impossible to predict how many climate change refugees the combination of drought, increasing desertification, floods, and other natural disasters will bring in the future.  The estimates range anywhere from a low of 25 million to a high of 800 million.  But whatever the figure, the resettlement of these refugees will pose huge stresses on countries as so much of the world will be suffering.

There are no predictions on the change in insect infestations and plant diseases as a result of climate change.  But there is no question that the impact will be significant, given what we see happening already at the beginning of this century.

Then there are the national security questions.  In recent Congressional testimony, Defense Secretary James Mattis called climate change a national security threat, impacting stability in areas of the world where U.S. troops are operating.  Nations under stress from climate disorder will be subject to internal unrest and conflicts may erupt between nations to gain control of diminishing resources.  It also presents logistical problems for the military.  The extent of these problems are unknowable, but they will certainly occur.

Note that, to date, all the best scientific predictions have been significantly off in that greater change has occurred within a shorter period of time.  Whether it’s the loss of ice at the poles and Greenland, or the bleaching death of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, scientists keep saying we didn’t think this would happen for another 20-30 years.  So it would be wise to take these predictions as low.

Why is it so hard to make accurate forecasts even with sophisticated computer modeling?  All elements of nature … the water we drink, plants growing, weather patterns … are dependent on a multitude of interacting factors.  The water we drink is the product of a complex interaction of meteorological, geologic, and chemical forces.  Plants are dependent on so many things - light, water, nutrients - which are in turn dependent on a variety of natural forces.  Weather patterns are again dependent on a complex interaction of meteorological and geologic forces.

The answer to the above question is that even the most accomplished scientists have an incomplete understanding of the interaction of the forces of nature that impact the changes we have already seen and will control what happens in the future.  Since the value of computer output is based on the value of the inputs given the computer, the computer cannot produce accurate results.

Clearly, this issue should be a big deal for everyone.  These are not things that one can just adapt to through improved technology.  The human dislocation will be massive.  Our food production system, which has developed over the past century, will be devastated; we will have to make changes, start over again in new places and perhaps in new ways.  And this at a time when the world’s burgeoning population needs a constant increase in food production to prevent disaster.   Pests of various types will appear in areas where they never have and wreak havoc on the native vegetation and animal life. 

The more accurate phrase to describe what is happening and what will happen in the future is not “global warming” or “climate change,” but “climate disorder” resulting in “global upheaval.”  We must do whatever we can, at whatever cost to both convenience and finances, to slow down this process so that our children and their children don’t inherit a hell on earth.

For the Sake of Your Children and Grandchildren, Don’t Ignore Climate Change

If you have a 3-year old child or grandchild, he or she will most likely live until 2090.  His or her children … your grandchildren or great-grandchildren … will most likely live until 2115.  What kind of environment do you want to leave them … one that creates hardship and even threatens life or one that nurtures it?   That is the question that every corporation head, every member of Congress, and each and every citizen should ask themselves when considering the issue of climate change.

Al Gore was absolutely right when he labeled climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Corporations find it inconvenient because they don’t want to spend more money to clean up their emissions or change how things are produced.  The public finds it inconvenient because it doesn’t want to change it’s habits … the car culture, wanting consumer goods to be cheap, not wanting to bother with conservation.  And it’s inconvenient for the government because it means having to take leadership and, at least in the short run, displeasing important constituencies.

But guess what?  Inconvenient or not, the evidence becomes clearer every year that we are headed down a path that will lead to major disruptions and hardship for much of the Earth’s inhabitants.  And the disruptions and hardships are arriving more quickly than scientists had anticipated.

In the old days, miners used to take canaries down with them into the mines to warn them of impending disaster.  If gas was building up, the canaries would get sick before the miners had any awareness of a problem.  And the miners would get out as quickly as possible.

We have already had plenty of climate change “canaries in the mine,” but only scientists seem to be concerned.  Whether you look at the disappearance of arctic ice in summer, the weakening of the ice shelf in Greenland and parts of Antartica, the increase in violent weather and drought, the report that most polar bear cubs are not living to maturity, the march of pests from southern to northern areas with accompanying destruction of forests, deadly tick infestations of moose, the movement of fish and lobsters from their ancestral habitats further north as the Atlantic Ocean waters off much of New England become too warm … all of these things are warnings of much worse things to come.  

And each year, the scientific reports contain a familiar refrain … that the changes are happening more quickly than had been anticipated.  Now there is consensus that even with the world-wide agreement to cut carbon emissions currently in process, significant impact cannot be avoided, with such impact appearing by 2050.  Scientists are no longer even sure that the previous standard limit of a “safe” rise in temperature (2º C/3.6º F) is correct; it may be lower.  But even that limit can no longer be avoided.  Only catastrophic impact can possibly be avoided, and even that is less likely as each year without action passes..

We … governments, corporations, and the public … are playing a losing game of Russian roulette with the lives of our children and grandchildren.  If we want our immediate descendants to be able to continue living on Earth in a safe, secure environment, then more drastic broad-based action needs to be taken now.  Everyone gives lip service to “our children are the future,” yet everyone acts like there’s no tomorrow.  Everyone’s planning is short-term.

I don’t know what the exact answer is.  But I do know that denial has to stop.  And significant action has to be taken by government, corporations, and individuals for the sake of our children.

Peak OIl or No, The Answer is Back to the Future

I have been a firm believer in the peak oil theory.  A recent article in the Atlantic, however, “What If We Never Run Out of Oil?” provided updated facts and changed my perspective.  If one believes in peak oil, then one believes in an oncoming economic disaster since the world’s economy is based on oil.  But the proponents of peak oil provide no answer to that scenario.  If one believes that there is no end to obtainable oil reserves, and we keep on living as we have been, perhaps even more so, then the disaster comes from climate change which will also reek economic disaster.  And we have no answer for that either.

In addressing these issues, people either seem focused on how to keep living as we have been, or they throw up their hands in despair.  Even climate change proponents don’t argue for a radical change in lifestyle but base their proposals on the smarter use of fossils fuels together with alternative energy sources because of the economic implications of doing otherwise.  No one is really moving us closer to an answer to the riddle.

This is one of those moments that screams for thinking outside the box.  Whether peak oil  is or comes to be, or whether we have an endless supply of it, the bottom line is the same ... we must find a way to wean the world off of oil so that we avoid economic and social disaster, whether it comes from the lack of oil or climate change.

The answer I propose is in one sense surprisingly simple.  We go back to the future.  We for the most part go back to a system and structure that is not dependent on oil or other fossil fuels.  We don’t have to make up a new world, we just have to look back at the world we came from to see how it would work.  

That at least is the basic rule, though in some areas of life the use of fossil fuels will continue to be necessary.  Why?  Because our population has grown so much and is more concentrated in cities.  Because, for example, the cold-water flats of the past are no longer acceptable in a modern-day scenario and heating with wood is not a viable option.

There are various ways to look at the implications of what I am proposing.

Replacing oil as an energy source.  As the industrial revolution advanced, one of the main changes was the replacement of human labor by machines.  And that has increased exponentially in the digital and robotic age of manufacturing.  Modern methods of manufacturing and farming are highly energy intensive.  We will have to go back to a form of operation that is more labor intensive.  That will have the double advantage of not only freeing us from oil, but once again finding appropriate employment for masses of workers in industry and farming, thus ending the unemployment problem.  To the extent that an energy source is needed, it will have to come from cleaner sources.

This will without question make products more expensive, which will mean a drop in the standard of living for many, but that will be offset by the increased standard of living of all the millions of people who now once again have gainful employment.  We have been living too long with the illusion of cheap goods fostered by the exploitation of the poor in far away lands and the availability of cheap transport made possible by cheap oil.

Where goods are manufactured.  In a back to the future world, the modern global economy will cease to be.  Instead, the economy will be as it was before ... primarily national, and in many cases regional or local.  While again this means an increase in the cost of many items, and a corresponding lowering of the standard of living many are used to, it will mean the repatriation of millions of jobs which will, together with the increased employment of human labor noted above, result in far less income inequality than has existed in recent times as well as an increased standard of living for many.  Plus whole towns and cities will be reborn.

The products we use.  Almost everything we use today is derived at least partially from oil.  That will end.  Instead, we will go back to natural products ... whether it’s glass bottles, or cotton shirts, or wood siding for homes, and of course all food products.  Again, this will mean an increase in cost but it will have the benefit of reviving rural economies, both nationally and world-wide, that have been devastated by the modern industrial economy. 

There is at least one area, though, where limited use of oil will be required, and that is in the production of modern pharmaceuticals.  Unless a way can be found to produce them without the organic compounds that come from oil, that will remain a necessary ingredient.

Transportation.  While we won’t have to go back to the horse and buggy, major changes will be necessary.  First, all cars will have to be electric, and the electric generating plants that produce the electricity to charge them must be operated on natural gas, hydro-electric, nuclear, or alternative energy, otherwise there is no energy saving.  All public transportation must be electric or alternate energy, and there must be more public transport.  The nation’s regional train system needs to be revitalized with efficient, modern high-speed trains.  Air travel would be limited to national (i.e. not regional) and international travel.

While all of this will involve a massive restructuring, given the entrepreneurial prowess of American business, there is no question in my mind that all of this can be accomplished.  If we start planning now rather than waiting for disaster to strike, our economy and people will prosper as perhaps never before and with greater equality.  

But American business and politics has operated for a long time on a short-term planning basis.  The question is whether our corporate and political leaders can face the facts and engage in the type of long-range planning that this massive restructuring of our system and lives will require.

Energy Policy Ignores the Elephant in the Room: Saving Us from Global Warming and Peak Oil

In current thinking, the issues presented by global warming concern using less fossil fuel and replacing that energy source with alternative”clean” energy.  We are all familiar with the options that are on the table: solar power, wind power, ethanol, and nuclear power. Oh and I suppose for accuracy one should add clean coal. There is also modest incremental talk of conservation.

However, there are problems with all of these “solutions.”  Clean coal, which requires the deep burial of carbon dioxide, will never be politically or economically viable.  For one, the energy companies want to be left off the hook legally if the gas should happen to escape its underground habitat and kill people.  Then there’s the problem of removing mountaintops and the resulting environmental degradation to access the coal.

Nuclear power, at least nuclear fission, has the inescapable and unsolvable problem of what to do with the nuclear waste product that will remain radioactive for thousands of years.  Nuclear fusion, which would be safer and produce less radioactive waste is still experimental; a test reactor is under construction in France.

The remaining “green” options are generally agreed not to have the capacity to provide anywhere close to our massive energy needs.  And even the green options, including electric cars, would need massive amounts of energy … generated by fossil fuels, of course … to be financially viable. Corn ethanol, which has only thrown world corn markets into a frenzy resulting in increased food costs for the poor, has been proven to be worthless as an energy saver.

If one is objective, one therefore has to say that all the talk about substantially reducing our carbon footprint through the use of alternative energy sources just is not very realistic, given our current  and future dependence on energy, which will just get worse as the world population grows and more of it experiences modern development.

And as one thinks about this issue, it is important to remember that there is another energy-related catastrophic event waiting to happen out there … it’s not just global warming. At some point in the future … whether it’s starting to happen already as some argue or will happen in 20 or 50 or 100 years … we will reach “peak oil.” The availability of oil then will be drastically reduced and the price of what oil is available will skyrocket to unimaginable heights.

So if one is trying to plan for the future, the inescapable question that must be addressed is how can modern man live, with a reasonable level of creature comfort (one must be practical), using only a fraction of the energy that is being used today. Only if that question can be realistically answered is there any hope for mankind’s future. If that question is not answered, sooner rather than later our economies will collapse, our standard of living will evaporate … the world will become a very ugly place, not all that different from the futuristic world depicted in “Mad Max.”  We will have destroyed ourselves, not by nuclear weapons, but through our insatiable greed.

I certainly do not have the answer.  What’s scary though, is that I am not aware of any great minds or think tanks that have addressed this issue and come up with various models for how we could live using only a fraction of the energy being used today. No one seems to be thinking or talking about this. This goes way beyond what could be achieved through conservation, energy-efficient appliances, green buildings, and the like. This would most likely require a massive change in the way we currently live.

To my mind, government and industry must join forces in a project even larger than the fabled Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. The future of our children, and certainly our children’s children, will depend on whether and how this issue is addressed.

Opposition to Climate Change: Reasoned or Self-Interest?

The Republicans are moving forward in their opposition to climate change.  As the New York Times reported recently, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives will push legislation stating that the EPA does not have authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.   They have already done away with the House subcommittee responsible for climate change.   While this bill will most likely not succeed in the Senate, Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, has proposed a bill that would put off any new regulations regarding power plants and other industrial sources for two years.

Despite all the evidence, historic and current, that climate change is upon us and is to a large extent caused by the polluting effect of human industrial and other energy-related activities, there are those, both scientists and politicians, who do not believe this is true.  They either deny that climate change is happening or that it is caused by human activity as opposed to the cycles of nature.  Why?

There is no rational reason for doubting the facts of climate change.  While those who are skeptics have sought to poke holes in the evidence, either by claiming that Climategate showed that the evidence has been manipulated by climate activists or questioning how there can be global warming when the United States and Europe has been experiencing the coldest and snowiest winters in years, these claims have no basis. 

There was no falsification of data found in Climategate and the global warming pattern of climate change is not contradicted by the cold winters we’ve been having.  Overall, we have experienced the hottest years on record and temperatures at both poles and in the ocean are clearly rising.

When you look behind the smoke screens and bluster, one comes up with an answer very much in keeping with human nature and our culture … greed.   Whether it’s scientists who are dependent on the energy industry for the funding of their projects, or it’s Republican politicians whose first interest is always protecting the interests of their big business corporate donors, or it’s a Democrat from West Virginia, a state where politicians regardless of party receive significant financial backing from the local coal industry, the answer is the same.

These people are more concerned with their own personal self-interest then they are with the common good of their countrymen or mankind.  While this is not an uncommon human character trait, and it is certainly not a new trait among politicians, the increasing influence of corporate and financial interests in Congress over the past 30 years is very disturbing. 

Government officials … whether elected or employed … are responsible for doing the people’s work, of acting to further the common good.  President Lincoln coined the phrase, “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  The Republicans and some Democrats have instead sought to nurture government of industry, by industry, and for industry.